Differences Between Burr And Hamilton

The interview at Weehawken set a very important precedent for the future of the United States. In July of 1804, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, two aristocratic and influential individuals, conducted a duel on a cliff in Weehawken, New Jersey. The duel was meant to solve the two men’s political differences, and to prove to the country which man’s views were correct, but ended up causing more problems than it fixed. Many long-term issues led up to the incident and would turn out to leave a powerful effect on the growth of the United States.
There were quite a few main causes that led to the interview at Weehawken. Burr and Hamilton had issues even on paper: Burr was a Republican and Hamilton was a Federalist. However, they also had personal problems they never overcame. The first conflict between the men was in 1791 when Burr took a U.S. Senate seat from one of Hamilton’s

The “interview at Weehawken” finally happened on July 11th, 1804. Burr felt that in order to salvage his downward spiraling political career he had to challenge Hamilton to a duel, but, little did he know it would soon only make matters worse. Ellis explains how each man fired a shot, but only Hamilton was hit and wounded. Hamilton died soon thereafter, and “the overwhelming popular consensus was that Burr had murdered Hamilton in cold blood” (Ellis 26). The unnecessary and incessant fighting between Burr and Hamilton taught the country quite a few things, and left a dramatic effect on the political development of our country. If Hamilton would have won the duel, he likely would have become President and restored the long-gone dominance of federalism in the White House and the economy. Therefore, Federalism would have been more successful for longer than it was. Also, if Hamilton would not have died in the duel, dueling most likely would have been more common and possibly legal for longer than it was.